Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 237 1985 SLD 237 1985 MLD 987
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-198 of 1979, decision dated: 21st July, 1985, hearing DATE : 8-05-1985
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ
Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Liaquat Merchant Dy.A.General for
Respondents

OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS Ltd.

VS

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others

Law: Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968)

Section: 4

Law: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)

Section: 9

[Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968)].......S 4(1)--Abatement of duty--Such abatement, held, could be allowed if total production in all categories was less than total capacity. Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd., Nowshera v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs 1979 S C M R 640 distinguished. (b) Interpretation of statutes-- --- Where intention of law giver was clear and language of statute was unambiguous, superfluous words, held, could not be introduced so as to make it inconsistent with law--Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, r. 4(1), proviso]. M.A. Khakwani v. Mst. Shaheen and another 1981 C L C 1545; Divisional Superintendent, P.W.R. Karachi v. Baashir .Ahmad P L D 1973 S C 589; Province of East Pakistan v. Sharafatullah and 87 others P L D 1970 S C 514 and Principal/Administrator, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 7 others P L D 1980 Quetta 10 ref. (c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)-- ---Art. 9--Construction of rule--Construction made by Department correct and legal--No case, held, made out for interference by High Court in its extraordinary jurdiction.--[interpretation of statutes]. ORDER ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner company manufacture cotton yarn in their factory which was subject to capacity duty under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called capacity rules). According to Rule 2(2) of the Capacity Rules, duty on the production capacity as specified in the schedule for fixed duty was to be levied at different rates on the prescribed categories of yarn. The petitioner Mill manufactured coarse, medium, fine, superfine yarn and these items have been specified differently. During the financial year 1974-75 (9 months July, 1974 to March, 1975), the petitioner's Mill claimed abatement of capacity duty both under Rule 4 as well as Rule 5 of the Capacity Rules, 1968. The petitioner supplied figures of production in two parts i.e., one relating to July, 1974 to 29th October, 1974 to, 31st March, 1975. The reasons for giving the figures in two parts was that from 1st July, 1974 to 29th October, 1974 rates of capacity duty remained…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492